The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens against random arrests and forms the legal basis for search warrants and various forms of surveillance. In this present case, a sniff made by a K-9 dog was used for the basis of a search warrant that lead to a drug burst in an attempt. However, the defendant argues that the search based on the sniff is unconstitutional. On that note, it is important to analyze the argument in the light of the suppositions and ruling in the case State v. Edstrom .
The Relevance of Curtilage according to The State’s Attorney
The state attorney argues that the search did not happen within the curtilage of Mr. Edstrom’s home hence there was no need for a search warrant. While a person’s home is protected by the constitution, the hallway of an apartment is not (Minnesota Judicial Branch, 2018). This applies even if the door sniffed at the defendant’s dog to detect drugs. The hallway is a common area hence cannot be considered curtilage.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Relevance of Curtilage according to Edstrom’s Attorney
The defense argued that the sniff made by the narcotics dog was an infringement of the Fourth Amendment clause that protects against unreasonable searches. In particular, the attorney stated that a search can happen when the state physically intrudes onto an area that is protected by the constitution, like the curtilage of a home (Minnesota Judicial Branch, 2018). In addition, a search can happen when the state intrudes upon a citizen’s rational expectation of privacy (Grego, 2020). Based on these facts, the defendant asserted that the state officers were intruding on the curtilage of his home. Also, he had a rational expectation of privacy in the apartment’s hallway that was searched by the police dog.
Examination of the Supreme Court‘s Opinion
Whereas it is apparent that the home itself is an area that is protected by the constitution, it is not always clear what will be regarded as curtilage, which gets a similar level of protection as the home. Additionally, if an area is regarded curtilage, and law enforcement brings drug-sniffing dogs, the court looks at certain variables including; (1) the closeness of the area to the apartment; (2) if the area is enclosed; (3) the use of the area; and (5) the steps that have been made to make the area exclusive (Minnesota Judicial Branch, 2018). Based on these variables, the Supreme Court ruled that the search did not happen within the curtilage of the defendant’s home. Also, due to the common access that residents have to that hallway, it is not somewhere one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy (Minnesota Judicial Branch, 2018). Therefore, the presence of drug-sniffing dog cannot be considered a search, and the defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that area. Due to this, the Court asserted that the Fourth Amendment was not violated.
Based on the facts used in State v. Edstrom, the judge was correct to issue a warrant for Dave’s apartment. The search by the K-9 did not infringe upon Dave’s expectation of privacy as it did was not done on his curtilage. Indeed, the dog sniffed all doors in the hallway before alerting the police about the presence of narcotics on door 202. Therefore, the police did not proceed directly to Dave’s door; rather they scanned the entire hallway, which is a common area for all residents. Also, it should be noted that the search using the dog was conducted after the police received evidence that Dave was dealing narcotics from the informant. Therefore, the drug sniffing dog was used to reinforce the evidence the police already had on Dave. Overall, the evidence gathered by the police through the sniffing dog did not constitute a search hence Dave did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment.
Influence of the Legal Arguments and the Court's Decision on Future Decisions, Actions, and Report Writing
While the decision in Edmond’s case endorses the use of narcotics-sniffing dogs in an investigation, a police officer should be careful about using the evidence gathered by the canines. While narcotics-detection dogs are effective, they are far from perfect (Grego, 2020). Therefore, the results from a sniff conducted by a dog cannot be used as the basis of searching a person’s home. As a police officer, I need to have other forms of evidence, like a testament by an informant, before I execute a search. I will only use the canine-sniffing dog as a way of reinforcing the evidence that I already have. Also, I should be careful how I embark on this mission. For instance, I can only venture into the building if the owner or caretaker gives me permission. Without these factors in place, I cannot conduct this search as I would be operating on the fringes of the law. When writing the report, I need to include every single detail about the search to avoid any loopholes that may be used by the defendant. In particular, I would state how I got evidence that led to the search, and how the actual search was conducted in relation to police procedures. The objective of following this rigorous process is to circumvent any liability and to ensure the evidence I get is admissible in court.
References
Grego, S. (2020). “State v State v. Edstrom: No Warrant Needed for Minnesota Needed for Minnesota Police to Conduct a Dog Sniff Outside Your Apartment.” Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/usthomlj16&div=20&id=&page=
Minnesota Judicial Branch. (2018, April 11). Minnesota Supreme Court Video Oral Argument. Retrieved from http://www.mncourts.gov/SupremeCourt/OralArgumentWebcasts/ArgumentDetail.aspx?vid=1201 .
Minnesota Judicial Branch. (2018, August 15). Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion. Retrieved from https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2018/OPA161382-081518.pdf .
